Clinical Research on Foot & Ankle
Open Access

Children; Mechanism; Fracture; Surgery

Introduction

The majority of pediatric trauma visits to the emergency room are caused by falls from heights. For instance, an estimated 23,000 children between the ages of 6 and 9 in the United States receive treatment each year for injuries brought on by bunk beds. In industrialized nations, bunk beds are frequently installed in homes to save space in crowded urban areas. Even though guardrails and mandatory product safety standards have been established, serious injuries are still frequently reported. The US Consumer Product Safety Commission has recommended that the upper bunk be marked with a warning in order to prevent children under the age of six from using it. However, previous research has demonstrated that the majority of injuries to bunk beds (BBRs) still occur in this age group. Upper extremity fractures, which occur in twothirds of BBR falls, account for up to 40% of all injuries [1-4]. Nearly six times as likely are these children to require hospitalization. However, there are not many data on BBR fractures.

Fractures

For instance, in addition to fractures of the upper or lower limbs, we discovered five skull fractures, or 6% of the body. who found the same amount of skull fractures. A total of seven of the 218 children, or 3.2 percent, were able to recover from their skull fractures without experiencing any complications or neurological issues. Due to their higher center of gravity, young children typically fall headfirst, causing skull fractures and concussions. Sawyer also looked into the patterns of fractures caused by falls from high places. He stated that babies and children break their bones with their hands or feet, whereas adults and teenagers break their bones first with their feet [5]. However, we were unable to identify this pattern in terms of skull fractures because two of the children in our cohort were younger than three years old and the remaining three were older than six years old.

Fractures Have an Effect on Age

According to the majority of reports, patients under the age of six are most likely to sustain various BBR injuries. D'Souza and co. found that almost half of the injured children in the United States were under the age of six over a 16-year period. When McFaull looked at the Canadian cohort, he came to the same conclusion: a high number of incidents involving children between the ages of three and five. However, the majority of primary school students and more than 90% of children who broke their bones in this study were under the age of 10. Patients aged 6 to 9 years old had the highest rate (58.5%) [6]. However, the absence of patients who required imaging to examine suspected BBR fractures or injuries—such as superficial lacerations, contusions, abrasions, concussions, or strains/sprains—may be the cause of this finding. Furthermore, Mack et al. In addition, they informed their cohort that the age range of six to nine years had the highest fracture rate (34.4 percent).

Discussion

Because of space-saving necessities, most metropolitan abodes have cots, which are every now and again remembered to be undeniable. Because bunk beds caused children such severe trauma, standards were established decades ago. However, severe BBR injuries have been documented in previous reports. The purpose of this retrospective study was to investigate BBR fractures at tertiary trauma centers.

We found that 162 patients underwent imaging after a BBR injury. Men experienced 59.9% of all cases, according to the literature [7].

The incidence of fractures following an injury to a bunk bed ranges from 10% to 40%, according to reports; However, there are still relatively few papers that provide in-depth information on BBR fractures. We found that 49% of the patients in our cohort broke something. Because we only included children on whom an imaging procedure was carried out, our number of fractures was higher than that of previous publications and could not be compared. In contrast, the majority of recent studies that look at all BBR injuries are not this way. assert that based on our findings, 78% of fractures affected the upper extremities. In 2008. 572,580 children and adolescents under the age of 21 who went to the emergency room for BBR issues were examined by the authors. 68% of those patients broke their upper limbs, and 19.9% of those patients broke something else. In addition, described the 40% fracture rate in Canada's emergency room visits for BBR injuries between 1990 and 2009. With 411 affecting the upper extremities and 340 causing a fracture, over 80% of the 934 incidents involving upper bunks were related to fractures. In our cohort, forearm fractures accounted for 43% of all fractures, followed by clavicle (16%), humerus (13%), foot (10%), hand (6%), lower leg (6%), skull (6%), and the femur in one child [8,9]. Lower-extremity injuries, such as strains and sprains, were more common in jumps from the bunk bed. On the other hand, the physiological attempts to absorb a fall with outstretched arms may have increased the risk of upper-extremity fractures, as previously discussed in studies on bunk bed injuries [10].

Conclusions

The majority of children in this retrospective study broke their bones after being hurt on a bunk bed. Caregivers would benefit from information and strategies for preventing BBR fractures based on evidence.

1. Lipsky BA, Pecoraro RE, Larson SA, Hanley ME, Ahroni JH (1990) Outpatient management of uncomplicated lower-extremity infections in diabetic patients.Arch Intern Med 150(4): 790-797.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

2. Breen JD, Karchmer AW (1995) Staphylococcus aureus infections in diabetic patients.Infect Dis Clin North Am 9(1): 11-24.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

3. Porrini E, Ruggenenti P, Mogensen CE, Barlovic DP, Praga M, et al. (2015) Non-proteinuric pathways in loss of renal function in patients with type 2 diabetes. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 3: 382-391.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

4. Harjutsalo V, Groop PH (2014) Epidemiology and risk factors for diabetic kidney disease. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis 21: 260-266.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

5. Hudish LI, Reusch JE, Sussel L (2019) Β cell dysfunction during progression of metabolic syndrome to type 2 diabetes. J Clin Investig 129: 4001-4008.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

6. Jung CH, Son JW, Kang S, Kim WJ, Kim H, et al. (2021) Diabetes fact sheets in korea, 2020: An appraisal of current status. Diabetes Metab J 45: 1-10.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

7. Koumakis E, Gossec L, Elhai M, Burki V, Durnez A, et al. (2012) Heel pain in spondyloarthritis: results of a cross-sectional study of 275 patients.Clin Exp Rheumatol30(4): 487-491.

Indexed at , Google Scholar

8. Ozaras N, Havan N, Poyraz E, Rezvanı A, Aydın T (2016) Functional limitations due to foot involvement in spondyloarthritis.J Phys Ther Sci 28(7): 2005-2008.

Crossref

9. Hyslop E, McInnes IB, Woodburn J, Turner DE (2010) Foot problems in psoriatic arthritis: high burden and low care provision.Ann Rheum Dis 69(5): 928-963.

Crossref

10. Malhotra R, Chan CS, Nather A (2014) Osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot.Diabet Foot Ankle 5: 24445-24456.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref